Why do so few trains have level access?

[Colind]

As a wheelchair user, it is very frustrating that with all the talk about PRM modifications nobody is bothering to address the issue that is really important to me - level access trains.

The only heavy-rail service in the UK that I have ever come across with level access is Heathrow Express. Now I read that those trains are to be replaced by Class 387s.

Among new-build trains, I think I have read that Crossrail and the Greater Anglia FLIRTS will be level access. Can anyone confirm this? Are there any others, existing or planned? What about Thameslink - how does one load a wheelchair up a ramp in 45 secs dwell time?

Quite apart from the inconvenience, it’s a safety hazard. While I was waiting for someone in front of me to exit the train in Swansea the other day, she clipped the side of the ramp with her wheelchair and nearly overturned. I am sure I am not alone in finding that using these ramps is one of the trickiest manoeuvres I ever have to make. Add an audience and time pressure just increases the chance of an accident.

 

[Domh245]

The Thameslink core is getting fitted with humps in the central section so that there is level access to the accessible sections. The FLIRTS are going to be low floor, but I'm not sure if that'll necessarily mean level access, but the new Merseyrail units will be level access as well as I understand it.

As for the more general point about why there isn't level access, there are a variety of reasons, but the main one is platform curvature. A lot of platforms have got curvature which means that if you have level access you then have to make the floor level of the train narrower to avoid the train hitting the platform as it goes around. A good example is with the Underground's new S stock. It has a lower floor than it's predecessors to improve the level boarding situation, but as a result the floor is narrower, and so the step at some stations such as Baker Street (Met) has gotten far larger. You've also got issues around existing stock as well because if you want to improve level access without making the horizontal step dangerous then you've got to start modifying platforms, and when you do that you start running into problems with trains that won't be level access, such as freight. It is unfortunate but achieving a good amount of level access is only feasible on (to all intents and purposes) closed and purpose made networks like the Thameslink and Crossrail cores, or Merseyrail. With that in mind, Ramps are about the only solution left, and perhaps we should look at ways of improving ramps to make it easier, such as widening them or adding in side rails.

 

[centraltrains]

With that in mind, Ramps are about the only solution left, and perhaps we should look at ways of improving ramps to make it easier, such as widening them or adding in side rails.

Don't some New York Subway stations have platform edges which move up to the edge of the train when the trains pulls in and then slide back before it departs? Couldn't the be used?

 

[221129]

Don't some New York Subway stations have platform edges which move up to the edge of the train when the trains pulls in and then slide back before it departs? Couldn't the be used?

And how much is that going to cost at EVERY railway station in the UK? Then What if it fails stuck out? Line blocked for several hours... or it fails stuck in? Use a ramp that you would have used anyway...

 

[Domh245]

Don't some New York Subway stations have platform edges which move up to the edge of the train when the trains pulls in and then slide back before it departs? Couldn't the be used?

They do, but in addition to the points that @221129 has made, there is still a requirement for consistent rolling stock for that. The amount by which the steps can move it is dependent on how close to the platform edge the nearest bit of train will be, and that will vary for any given platform as a function of bogie spacing and width. You could get around that by only having moving platforms where the doors will be, but the position of the doors is going to be even more varied than the horizontal offset is!

 

[Agent_Squash]

The only heavy-rail service in the UK that I have ever come across with level access is Heathrow Express. Now I read that those trains are to be replaced by Class 387s.

Heathrow Express has two dedicated platforms at Paddington - it wouldn't be impractical to raise/lower them as appropriate for the 387s.

 

[superkev]

Having to almost lift a disabled friend of mine into a class 150 at Sowerby Bridge last Saturday I too am puzzled as to why trams and buses all have level access or ramps (powered in London) but even new trains have a huge step the class 800 having two steps. This is despite the track at Sowerby being lowered last year by a reported just 2inches at probably huge cost and a whole weekend shutdown.
If they can fit a ramp in the restricted space of a bus platform why not a train?
Encouragingly I believe merseyrails and possibly Anglias new trains will have integral pop out continental style pop out ramps.
K

 

[edwin_m]

Most multiple units have a floor at about 1.1m above the rail so the Heathrow Express platforms probably don't need changing for 387s. However a platform at this height will foul the gauge for passing freight trains unless it is set back a long way from the track so the big gap creates another hazard. Hence they are only possible on lines that other train types don't use, such as Paddington HEX platforms, Heathrow and the Crossrail central section. The Underground has also been re-building platforms recently to give more level boarding.

The Anglia Flirts have done something different by having the floor level with the standard platform of 0.914m above rail, at least at the entrances. However the train must be significantly narrower at this height so as to clear the platforms, which partly explains their somewhat unusual cross-section. I'm not sure what this does for the foot-space of people sitting in the window seats. Even with this arrangement there are likely to be problems on sharply curved platforms or the many that are lower than standard.

 

[superkev]

Some examples of powered integral ramps from places with a can do culture unlike our present can't do culture.

K

 

[NotATrainspott]

HS2 is going to address this to some extent. All new platforms will be built at 1155mm above rail level, the same height as the floor of the train. New platforms are also limited in how much they can curve, so the gap won't vary so much. The trains will all be fitted with gap-filling devices which will provide complete gap-free access to new-build HS2 platforms. Those fillers will oversail existing platforms so that while there will be a step, there won't be a gap. I think gap fillers like these will become common on trains, and that might provide a good opportunity to put in automatic ramps too.

 

[centraltrains]

And how much is that going to cost at EVERY railway station in the UK? Then What if it fails stuck out? Line blocked for several hours... or it fails stuck in? Use a ramp that you would have used anyway...

It would cost as much as it needs to to stop discrimination against those in wheelchairs who can't travel.
I do not know costings or failures, I would hope such system could just be easily pushed back and locked out of use manually by non-specialized staff if it were to fail.

I put trust into government experts to make sure everything is adequate and properly fulfilling in this context. Unlike Brexit voters, I have not had enough of experts, as Michael Gove implied. If a ramp works properly, and those who need them feel that it is a fully adequate non-discriminatory way to enable access to the trains for their needs, then that is fine. However I do not know enough on the topic to say. I would imagine it would feel quite embarrassing for a wheelchair using to have to wait for another human to go and get a ramp to let them on board, but I don't know, I am not a wheel chair user.


The videos which superkev shared are my favorite solution, never get why buses have them and trains don't. With some stations having enormous gaps, I should imagine it might be hard to have an adequately lengthened ramp in order to have not too steep of an incline. The platform already seems very close in these examples.

[the Brexit bit is meant in humor, I now realize after posting it may not come across that way but i'll wait to see if anyone actual is offended by it before removing it as I am not 100% sure.]

 

[colchesterken]

I thought about this a few yrs ago. Colchester Town is at the bottom of my garden. As part of the upgrade they replaced all the track in the station.I watched them over a weekend. I remember thinking they could lower the track by about 4" and move it over by about 3" to clear the train step, and bingo you have level access for disabled and prams etc
It could be done as a rolling project,

 

[w0033944]

As a wheelchair user myself, my response to this is that I doubt that anything can be done above and beyond what has already been done. It's why the only trains I ever use are on heritage railways where time pressure isn't as much of a factor and where, therefore, I'm not significantly inconveniencing anyone, presuming that I enquire politely well in advance of the departure time as to whether I might be able to make use of the ramp.

 

[swt_passenger]

I thought about this a few yrs ago. Colchester Town is at the bottom of my garden. As part of the upgrade they replaced all the track in the station.I watched them over a weekend. I remember thinking they could lower the track by about 4" and move it over by about 3" to clear the train step, and bingo you have level access for disabled and prams etc
It could be done as a rolling project,

What about freight?

 

[edwin_m]

Some examples from places with a can do culture unlike our present can't do culture.

K

Both Boston Green Line and Portland MAX are light rail, with no need for compatibility with the existing network. All our light rail networks have level boarding, no ramp required, even the surviving historic tramway at Blackpool which was re-built with level access a few years ago.

 

[47802]

No easy solution to this in most cases, except where you have routes with one train type and fixed stopping point where you can build a small section of the platform up to be more level. But imagine the practicality of doing that at such as Leeds station with it's multitude of different trains. The alternative as already mentioned is such as the Flirt trains with the slightly lower floor at platform height. From Stadlers viewpoint the train being of a Low Floor European design makes it potentially easier for them to do this, but even then you will have the disadvantage to non wheelchair users of a non flat floor with steps and potentially less flexible seating options as a result. The reduced space under the floor would also no doubt throw out the window UK tendency to have underfloor mounted engines, hence Stadler trains with a Power Car. Given the majority of new stock that is being ordered is of the traditional UK floor height this situation isn't going to change anytime soon.

 

[superkev]

Both Boston Green Line and Portland MAX are light rail, with no need for compatibility with the existing network. All our light rail networks have level boarding, no ramp required, even the surviving historic tramway at Blackpool which was re-built with level access a few years ago.

Sorry but I fail to see why at least one door of every train can't be fitted with an integral ramp preferably powered and user operated.
K

 

[221129]

Sorry but I fail to see why at least one door of every train can't be fitted with an integral ramp preferably powered and user operated.
K

As has been explained several times alot of platforms and trains are at different heights, different stopping positions make it unfeasable.

 

[Taunton]

Don't some New York Subway stations have platform edges which move up to the edge of the train when the trains pulls in and then slide back before it departs? Couldn't the be used?

"Gap Fillers". A costly mechanical nightmare, constantly going wrong and jamming in various ways - and it's not as if the MTA have not tried to overcome this. There have been various designs, the old ones used to drop down like a drawbridge, newer ones slide in and out. Interlocked with the signalling on both arrival and departure so if just one jams the platform is out of action. Stations with them (only a few) need crossovers either end so when they do jam it does not stop the service. You also only can use rolling stock of one design, whose doors align with them.

 

[Spartacus]

It's easier for buses to have them as the bus is always roughly the same height from the pavement, the difference between platform heights varies considerably, and is likely to change if the station is on a curve, which also affects the distance from the side of the train and the platform, making any sort of automatic ramp quite difficult, and would have to be long, resulting in potential problem with it being used without staff present. What overcomes the problems? A long ramp used by rail staff.

 

[superkev]

As has been explained several times alot of platforms and trains are at different heights, different stopping positions make it unfeasable.

Sorry we will just have to disagree on this one. Anything's possible with the will and sufficient funding.
K

 

[ComUtoR]

Sorry we will just have to disagree on this one. Anything's possible with the will and sufficient funding.
K

I would support the slid out ramps and agree they are something that should be considered. But at what price ? How much extra are you willing to add to the ticket price for the ramps ? How much additional subsidy ? how much investment in new rolling stock ? Years of platform reconstruction ? Are the passengers really willing to go through and pay for all it would require or are ramps a acceptable solution ?

 

[centraltrains]

It's easier for buses to have them as the bus is always roughly the same height from the pavement, the difference between platform heights varies considerably, and is likely to change if the station is on a curve, which also affects the distance from the side of the train and the platform, making any sort of automatic ramp quite difficult, and would have to be long, resulting in potential problem with it being used without staff present. What overcomes the problems? A long ramp used by rail staff.

I'm sure you could have parameters to account for this pre-programmed in so it can detect which station it is at and deploy differently accordingly...

 

[Taunton]

I think we should also recognise that, for level access, the stations of Britain are a sight BETTER than those of Conntinental Europe, or the USA, where platforms have always been much lower than train doors, and are far more challenging for the disabled.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Sorry we will just have to disagree on this one. Anything's possible with the will and sufficient funding.
K

It's totally feasible. The vast majority of Swiss regional trains and a good many of the ICs have level boarding at most stations, and that's with a low floor/low platform system.

It is to me very poor that the UK version of PRM TSI, while mandating a load of things that make no sense (e.g. locking up bogs that aren't accessible so someone with a bladder problem can just wet themselves or can't use the train - really riles that that is not considered a disability as much as any other), didn't mandate a standard "work towards" platform height and all new stock to fit it with moving steps on the stock to close the gap.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think we should also recognise that, for level access, the stations of Britain are a sight BETTER than those of Conntinental Europe, or the USA, where platforms have always been much lower than train doors, and are far more challenging for the disabled.

Not really true any more with the coming of the low floor EMU.

Even Thameslink has been botched, there's a 3cm-ish drop which requires a mini-ramp (and the Harrington humps are of very poor build quality and not in keeping with the rest of the platform surface). The Thameslink programme should have required level boarding throughout by its completion, there is really no excuse for it.

(I'm sure there's a reason, but that reason is a botch, because there are ways to achieve proper level boarding as the Swiss have and as Merseyrail will)

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm sure you could have parameters to account for this pre-programmed in so it can detect which station it is at and deploy differently accordingly...

Ask Stadler. All FLIRTs (certainly all recent ones) are fitted with moving steps. They either come fully out if they are above the platform height, or they stop when they reach the platform edge if they are at the same level or lower.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Thameslink core is getting fitted with humps in the central section so that there is level access to the accessible sections.

Except there isn't. There is a reduced step, but the train is about 1.5" higher than the platform so ramps are still used. An utter botch.

 

[edwin_m]

It's easier for buses to have them as the bus is always roughly the same height from the pavement, the difference between platform heights varies considerably, and is likely to change if the station is on a curve, which also affects the distance from the side of the train and the platform, making any sort of automatic ramp quite difficult, and would have to be long, resulting in potential problem with it being used without staff present. What overcomes the problems? A long ramp used by rail staff.

I think the most important point is that the ramp on buses (and the few LRVs that have one) is close to the driver who can supervise its operation. Something that shoots out automatically from the doorstep and wallops the feet of whoever is just about to step on board isn't really acceptable otherwise (though some on here would probably praise it as a way of making sure boarders stand aside while people are alighting). That would be difficult to do for a long train because the accessible doorway tends to be near the middle so too far away for the driver to supervise. Perhaps CCTV is a possibility, then again the person in the wheelchair may need staff assistance to use the ramp safely.

I do think with a bit of ingenuity it would be possible to make a manual ramp that slides out like a drawer from a slot below the doorstep and when fully extended is able to hinge downwards onto the platform. It would be long enough to give an acceptable gradient at the lowest platform on the route but there is the challenge that they might meet in the middle when both stowed. This would have to be staff-operated but would be significantly quicker than deploying and stowing the portable ramps.

 

[edwin_m]

It's totally feasible. The vast majority of Swiss regional trains and a good many of the ICs have level boarding at most stations, and that's with a low floor/low platform system.

That is with a structure gauge that is flat sided almost down to rail level. The fact ours tapers in at and below platform height makes this more difficult.